PROCTER & GAMBLE and SANOFI-AVENTIS v ROCHE and GLAXOSMITHKLINE
|
|
- Marilynn Shaw
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CASES AUTH/1803/2/06 and AUTH/1804/2/06 PROCTER & GAMBLE and SANOFI-AVENTIS v ROCHE and GLAXOSMITHKLINE Bonviva Once Monthly slide kits Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis complained jointly about two Bonviva Once Monthly (ibandronate) slide kits issued by Roche and GlaxoSmithKline. Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis supplied Actonel (risedronate). Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis noted that slide 6 in the slide kit entitled Osteoporosis, bisphosphonates and Bonviva (ibandronic acid) correctly described ibandronate as a bisphosphonate. Slide 11 stated that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended bisphosphonates as first-line therapy in the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures. Only alendronate, etidronate and risedronate, and not ibandronate, had been evaluated by NICE. By not excluding ibandronate, slide 11 misled the health professional to believe that NICE had recommended ibandronate as well. The NICE recommendation was based on an analysis of the cost effectiveness of medicines. Ibandronate was not licensed, nor had it demonstrated efficacy, in preventing hip fractures, the key cost driver in osteoporosis health economic evaluations. Efficacy of ibandronate in preventing nonvertebral fractures, another costly treatment, had also not been demonstrated. It should therefore not be implied that NICE would group ibandronate with the other bisphosphonates. Indeed during the evaluation of the available evidence the Scottish Medicines Consortium concluded that a grouping of ibandronate with other bisphosphonates in terms of hip and non-vertebral fractures was not appropriate. The omissions made in this slide kit were alleged to be in breach of the Code. Slide 11 also claimed that bisphosphonates in clinical trials had demonstrated vertebral and non-vertebral fracture reduction efficacy. The slide inferred this was also true for Bonviva, which was not the case, as specifically and unambiguously noted in the Bonviva Once Monthly summary of product characteristics (SPC). These claims were alleged to be in breach of the Code. The Panel noted that according to the SPC, Bonviva was indicated for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in order to reduce the risk of vertebral fractures. Efficacy on femoral neck fractures had not been established. Bonviva was first authorised in September 2005 ie eight months after the NICE guidance was published. The NICE Technology Appraisal 87, dated January 2005, was titled Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate), selective oestrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene) and parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. Page 47 of the document defined certain terms and it was stated that bisphosphonates included alendronate, etidronate and risedronate. In the Panel s view it was thus clear that even when the NICE document referred to bisphosphonates it referred only to those three medicines. The Panel noted that slide 11 referred to bisphosphonates and that they had been recommended by NICE as first-line therapy in the fractures. This statement was referenced to the NICE Technology Appraisal 87. Section 1.1 of that document, however, stated: Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate and risedronate) are recommended as treatment options for the fractures [in certain groups of women]. The Panel considered that in a presentation entitled Osteoporosis, bisphosphonates and Bonviva which cited the NICE guidance it was misleading not to state clearly which bisphosphonates the guidance covered. Bonviva had not been assessed by NICE. The Panel considered that slide 11 implied that ibandronate had been included in the NICE guidance which was not so. Slide 11 was misleading in this regard and not capable of substantiation. Breaches of the Code were ruled. The Panel noted that slide 11 stated that vertebral and non-vertebral efficacy with bisphosphonates had been demonstrated in clinical trials. The Panel that the statement implied that all bisphosphonates, including Bonviva, had demonstrated both vertebral and non-vertebral efficacy; given the licensed indication for Bonviva this was not so. Breaches of the Code were ruled. Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis noted that slides of the slide kit entitled Slides for hospital sales force Bonviva (ibandronic acid) monthly for postmenopausal osteoporosis presented data from the Monthly Oral ibandronate In LadiEs (MOBILE) study which had compared daily and monthly ibandronate. The main conclusion was that Once-monthly ibandronate can provide an effective, well-tolerated and practical alternative to daily and weekly oral 25 Code of Practice Review August 2006
2 bisphosphonates (slide 43). This suggested that a comparison to other once weekly bisphosphonates was made which was not the case and was thus grossly misleading. It further suggested that the study demonstrated similar efficacy between all bisphosphonates, which was clearly not the case as there were no head-to-head fracture studies between Bonviva and the other bisphosphonates. On the contrary all the data so far published on ibandronate differed from alendronate and risedronate by having failed to show fracture risk reduction efficacy at both the hip and non-vertebral sites. Roche and GlaxoSmithKline argued that despite this lack of head-to-head evidence the claim was still justified, but they failed to provide any scientific rationale or support. The claim was alleged to be in breach of the Code. The Panel noted that slide 44, headed MOBILE Study: Conclusions, stated that Once-monthly bisphosphonates. The MOBILE study compared once monthly ibandronate with once daily ibandronate not daily or weekly bisphosphonates. It was thus misleading to make a statement comparing once a month ibandronate with daily and weekly bisphosphonates under the heading MOBILE Study: conclusions. The statement was inaccurate in the context of the heading. Breaches of the Code were ruled. The Panel did not consider that the statement per se was outside the Bonviva marketing authorization or inconsistent with the SPC and thus in this regard no breach of the Code was ruled. Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd and Sanofi-Aventis, writing as The Alliance for Better Bone Health, complained jointly about two Bonviva Once Monthly slide kits. Slide Kit P was entitled Osteoporosis, bisphosphonates and Bonviva (ibandronic acid) and was used by clinicians, and available upon specific request. The second slide kit, P117413, was entitled Slides for hospital sales force Bonviva (ibandronic acid) monthly for postmenopausal osteoporosis. This slide kit was used by hospital representatives to support formulary submission to Drugs and Therapeutics Committees. Bonviva Once Monthly (ibandronate) was promoted by Roche Products Ltd (Case AUTH/1803/2/06) and GlaxoSmithKline UK Limited (Case AUTH/1804/2/06). Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis supplied Actonel (risedronate). Since Roche and GlaxoSmithKline were intent on persisting with making claims outside their licensed indication, were grouping the bisphosphonates together suggesting a class effect on fracture efficacy (including hip and non-vertebral fracture risk reduction), as raised in Cases AUTH/1779/11/05 and AUTH/1780/11/05, and were claiming interchangeability between bisphosphonates without any supporting data, Procter & Gamble and Sanofi- Aventis requested that the Authority urgently provided a clear ruling so that there were no future breaches of either the letter or spirit of the Code on these matters. The companies urged the Authority to instruct Roche and GlaxoSmithKline to immediately withdraw this material and issue a corrective statement amending these erroneous claims. 1 NICE guidelines COMPLAINT Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis noted that slide 6 in slide kit P correctly described ibandronate as a bisphosphonate. Slide 11 stated that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended bisphosphonates as first-line therapy in the fractures. Only alendronate, etidronate and risedronate, and not ibandronate, had been evaluated by NICE. By not excluding ibandronate, slide 11 misled the health professional to believe that NICE had recommended ibandronate as well. The NICE recommendation was based on an analysis of the cost effectiveness of medicines. Ibandronate was not licensed, nor had it demonstrated efficacy, in preventing hip fractures, the key cost driver in osteoporosis health economic evaluations. Efficacy of ibandronate in preventing non-vertebral fractures, another costly treatment, had also not been demonstrated. It should therefore not be implied that NICE would group ibandronate with the other bisphosphonates. Indeed during the evaluation of the available evidence the Scottish Medicines Consortium concluded that a grouping of ibandronate with other bisphosphonates in terms of hip and non-vertebral fractures was not appropriate. The omissions made in this slide kit were alleged to be in breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 of the Code. Slide 11 also claimed that bisphosphonates in clinical trials had demonstrated vertebral and non-vertebral fracture reduction efficacy. The slide inferred this was also true for Bonviva, which was not the case, as specifically and unambiguously noted in the Bonviva Once Monthly summary of product characteristics (SPC). These claims were alleged to be in breach of Clauses 7.2 and 7.4 of the Code. RESPONSE Roche and GlaxoSmithKline submitted that the data presented in the slides outlined current guidelines and issues in the management of osteoporosis. No attempt was made to imply that NICE had grouped ibandronate with other bisphosphonates. The clinical evidence base supporting the licensing of ibandronate justified the positioning of Bonviva as an alternative to current bisphosphonates. Roche and GlaxoSmithKline stated that the three points raised by Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis were: a) that the slide sets purported to claim that NICE recommended bisphosphonates as first-line therapy in the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures ; b) the same slide sets implied that NICE recommended the use of ibandronate; and c) the slide sets overstated the anti-fracture efficacy of ibandronate at non-vertebral sites. 26 Code of Practice Review August 2006
3 The companies submitted that the slides only represented accurate and widely accepted thinking of the role of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis care and all allusions to ibandronate s clinical profile were based upon firm and published clinical evidence. Roche and GlaxoSmithKline were certain that Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis knew that the NICE, Health Technology Appraisal published in January 2005, proposed that bisphosphonates were used as first-line therapy in the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures. Therefore, reference to this guidance constituted a statement of fact. Roche and GlaxoSmithKline failed to understand the contention that the positioning of slides 6 and 11 could mislead clinicians to believe that NICE recommended ibandronate for the prevention of secondary osteoporotic fragility fractures. Slides 6 and 11 were part of a presentation which flowed through the following sequence: (i) a discussion of osteoporosis: its definition, clinical sequelae, therapeutic options and issues in management (slides 2-10), (ii) a discussion of bisphosphonates: their mechanism of action and place in therapy (slides 11-13) and (iii) a discussion of the clinical evidence base of ibandronate. Within the discussion of osteoporosis, slide 6 outlined all available pharmacological interventions licensed for osteoporosis. Within the bisphosphonate class, all oral options (etidronate, alendronate, risedronate and ibandronate) were listed. In the next section which specifically discussed bisphosphonate therapy, a reference to the NICE guidelines recommending bisphosphonates as firstline agents in the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures was described as a single bullet point on slide 11. Furthermore, these slides represented true and accurate information. Additionally, slides 6 and 11 were separated by a discussion regarding issues in osteoporosis management. With the exception of the inclusion of ibandronate (a single word) amongst the list of currently licensed bisphosphonates, no further mention was made of Bonviva during this discussion of osteoporosis and bisphosphonates (though, subsequent discussions of the key ibandronate clinical studies followed in slides 14-46). Likewise, there was a single bullet point which referred to the NICE guidelines on a slide which described characteristics of bisphosphonates. Roche and GlaxoSmithKline thus failed to comprehend why Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis believed that there was an attempt to suggest that NICE had reviewed and recommended ibandronate for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures. The respondents noted that NICE, not having reviewed ibandronate, had not indicated any necessity to do so. Roche and GlaxoSmithKline did not understand Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis allegation regarding overstating of the anti-fracture efficacy of ibandronate at vertebral and non-vertebral sites. The statement referring to the vertebral and non-vertebral fracture efficacy was contained within a slide describing the characteristics of bisphosphonates. No allusion to ibandronate was made at this point. Whilst these slides referred to the vertebral fracture efficacy of ibandronate, this was consistent with the SPC for Bonviva. Furthermore, no non-vertebral fracture efficacy of this compound was discussed throughout this slide series. In summary, the suggestion that Roche and GlaxoSmithKline wilfully intended to mislead clinicians regarding ibandronate s status with NICE was unfounded. At no point, did these slides allude to ibandronate in relation to NICE s recommendations. Likewise, in rebuttal to the suggestion by Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis that Roche and GlaxoSmithKline attempted to exaggerate the non-vertebral or hip fracture efficacy data for ibandronate, the discussion of ibandronate s evidence base did not cite this data. Any mention of ibandronate was solely as a bisphosphonate, and chronologically separated from any discussion of NICE s recommendations. The inclusion of ibandronate within this slide series was justified on the basis of its marketing authorization. PANEL RULING The Panel noted that the indication section of the Bonviva SPC stated that it was for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women in order to reduce the risk of vertebral fractures. Efficacy on femoral neck fractures had not been established. Bonviva was first authorized in September 2005 ie eight months after the NICE guidance was published. The NICE Technology Appraisal 87, dated January 2005, was titled Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate, risedronate), selective oestrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene) and parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women. Page 47 of the document defined certain terms and it was stated that bisphosphonates included alendronate, etidronate and risedronate. In the Panel s view it was thus clear that even when the NICE document referred to bisphosphonates it referred only to those three medicines. The Panel noted that slide 11 referred to bisphosphonates and that they had been recommended by NICE as first-line therapy in the fractures. This statement was referenced to the NICE Technology Appraisal 87. Section 1.1 of that document, however, stated: Bisphosphonates (alendronate, etidronate and risedronate) are recommended as treatment options for the fractures: in women aged 75 years and older, without the need for prior dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scanning in women aged between 65 and 74 years if the presence of osteoporosis is confirmed by DEXA scanning, and in postmenopausal women younger than 65 years of age, if they have a very low bone mineral density (BMD), that is with a T-score of approximately 3 SD or below*, established by a DEXA scan), or if they have confirmed 27 Code of Practice Review August 2006
4 osteoporosis plus one, or more, additional ageindependent risk factor: [these were listed]. The Panel considered that in a presentation entitled Osteoporosis, bisphosphonates and Bonviva which cited the NICE guidance it was misleading not to state clearly which bisphosphonates the guidance covered. Bonviva had not been assessed by NICE. The Panel considered that slide 11 implied that ibandronate had been included in the NICE guidance which was not so. Slide 11 was misleading in this regard and not capable of substantiation. Breaches of Clauses 7.2 and The Panel noted that slide 11 stated that vertebral and non-vertebral efficacy with bisphosphonates had been demonstrated in clinical trials. The Panel considered this was misleading as it would be assumed that the statement implied that all bisphosphonates, including Bonviva, had demonstrated both vertebral and nonvertebral efficacy; given the licensed indication for Bonviva this was not so. Breaches of Clauses 7.2 and 2 MOBILE Study COMPLAINT Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis noted that slides of slide kit P presented data from the Monthly Oral ibandronate In LadiEs (MOBILE) study. The MOBILE study compared daily and monthly ibandronate. The primary endpoint of the study was bone mineral density (BMD) change at the lumbar spine; secondary endpoints only included BMD changes and changes in bone turnover markers. The main conclusion was that Once-monthly bisphosphonates (slide 43). This suggested that a comparison to other once weekly bisphosphonates was made which was not the case and was thus grossly misleading. It further suggested that the study demonstrated similar efficacy between all bisphosphonates, which was clearly not the case as there were no head-to-head fracture studies between Bonviva and the other bisphosphonates. On the contrary all the data so far published on ibandronate differed from alendronate and risedronate by having failed to show fracture risk reduction efficacy at both the hip and non-vertebral sites. Roche and GlaxoSmithKline argued that despite this lack of head-to-head evidence the claim was still justified, but they failed to provide any scientific rationale or support demonstrating an unwillingness to resolve this issue. The claim was alleged to be in breach of Clauses 3.2, 7.2 and 7.4 of the Code. Similar claims, relating to the MOBILE study, had also come to the companies attention, slide kit (P117413) (slide 21). Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis were very concerned about the way in which Roche and GlaxoSmithKline miscommunicated their licensed indication and associated data. The above concerns had been raised with Roche and GlaxoSmithKline as required by the Code, but they insisted on continuing with these misleading communications without compromise, despite the potential patient safety concerns. RESPONSE With regard to the claim once-monthly ibandronate may provide an effective, well-tolerated and practical alternative to daily and weekly oral bisphosphonates, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline acknowledged that there were no published head-to-head clinical studies directly comparing ibandronate with other bisphosphonates. The companies submitted that ibandronate was a valid alternative to current oral bisphosphonates. This was amply supported by the clinical evidence and the marketing authorization. The efficacy of ibandronate had been established by seminal registration trials which had met the standards imposed by the regulatory bodies. Ibandronate administered daily effectively reduced bone turnover, increased lumbar and hip BMD and reduced fracture risk. Monthly ibandronate was shown to be superior to daily ibandronate in increasing lumbar and hip BMD. On this basis, ibandronate had been granted a licence. Thus, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline were justified in offering ibandronate as an alternative to other oral bisphosphonates. Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis also contended that a statement proffering ibandronate as an alternative to currently available oral bisphosphonates might only be made after demonstration of comparable anti-fracture efficacy. Whilst demonstration of fracture risk reduction within a head-to-head study would indeed be ideal, this required the recruitment of substantial patients numbers which was prohibitive. For this reason, surrogate markets were accepted for fracture endpoints; for osteoporosis these included bone markers and BMD. The evidence base for ibandronate strongly suggested that Bonviva induced suppression of bone turnover and gains in lumbar and hip BMD as would be expected of a bisphosphonate. For these reasons, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline were justified in suggesting that ibandronate represented an alternative to other available oral bisphosphonates. PANEL RULING The Panel noted that slide 44, headed MOBILE Study: Conclusions, stated that Once-monthly bisphosphonates. The MOBILE study compared once monthly ibandronate with once daily ibandronate not daily or weekly bisphosphonates. It was thus misleading to make a statement comparing once a month ibandronate with daily and weekly bisphosphonates under the heading MOBILE Study: conclusions. The statement was inaccurate in the context of the heading. Breaches of Clauses 7.2 and The Panel did not consider that the statement per se was outside the Bonviva marketing authorization or inconsistent with the SPC and thus in this regard no breach of Clause 3.2 of the Code was ruled. * * * * * 28 Code of Practice Review August 2006
5 During its consideration of this case, the Panel noted Procter & Gamble and Sanofi-Aventis request that Roche and GlaxoSmithKline be required to issue a corrective statement. This was a sanction available to the Appeal Board but not to the Panel. Complaint received 23 February 2006 Case completed 21 April Code of Practice Review August 2006
MERCK SHARP & DOHME v ROCHE and GLAXOSMITHKLINE
CASES AUTH/1790/1/06 and AUTH/1791/1/06 MERCK SHARP & DOHME v ROCHE and GLAXOSMITHKLINE Promotion of Bonviva Merck Sharp & Dohme complained about the promotion of Bonviva (ibandronic acid) by Roche and
More informationHorizon Scanning Technology Briefing. Zoledronic Acid (Aclasta) once yearly treatment for postmenopausal. National Horizon Scanning Centre
Horizon Scanning Technology Briefing National Horizon Scanning Centre Zoledronic Acid (Aclasta) once yearly treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis December 2006 This technology summary is based on information
More informationBRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB and ASTRAZENECA v SANOFI
CASE AUTH/2638/9/13 and AUTH/2639/9/13 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB and ASTRAZENECA v SANOFI Promotion of Lyxumia Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca jointly complained about cost comparison claims in a Lyxumia
More informationQuality and Outcomes Framework Programme NICE cost impact statement July Indicator area: Osteoporosis - fragility fracture
Quality and Outcomes Framework Programme NICE cost impact statement July 2011 Indicator area: Osteoporosis - fragility fracture Indicators NM29: The practice can produce a register of patients: 1. Aged
More informationHorizon Scanning Centre March Denosumab for glucocorticoidinduced SUMMARY NIHR HSC ID: 6329
Horizon Scanning Centre March 2014 Denosumab for glucocorticoidinduced osteoporosis SUMMARY NIHR HSC ID: 6329 This briefing is based on information available at the time of research and a limited literature
More informationBisphosphonate Step Therapy Criteria
ϯ ϯ ϯ A Division of Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, an Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Bisphosphonate Step Therapy Criteria Program may
More informationnogg Guideline for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK
nogg NATIONAL OSTEOPOROSIS GUIDELINE GROUP Guideline for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and men from the age of 50 years in the UK Produced by J Compston, A Cooper,
More informationAdvanced medicine conference. Monday 20 Tuesday 21 June 2016
Advanced medicine conference Monday 20 Tuesday 21 June 2016 Osteoporosis: recent advances in risk assessment and management Juliet Compston Emeritus Professor of Bone Medicine Cambridge Biomedical Campus
More informationCosting statement: Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women
Costing statement: Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women Resource impact The guidance Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women
More informationClinical Policy: Abaloparatide (Tymlos) Reference Number: CP.CPA.306 Effective Date: Last Review Date: Line of Business: Commercial
Clinical Policy: (Tymlos) Reference Number: CP.CPA.306 Effective Date: 06.13 Last Review Date: 08.17 Line of Business: Commercial Revision Log See Important Reminder at the end of this policy for important
More informationSubmission to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on
Submission to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on Strontium ranelate for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis by The Society for Endocrinology
More informationGuideline for the investigation and management of osteoporosis. for hospitals and General Practice
Guideline for the investigation and management of osteoporosis for hospitals and General Practice Background Low bone density is an important risk factor for fracture. The aim of assessing bone density
More information1. UK List Price of Zoledronic acid (Zoledronate) 5 mg (Aclasta )
Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd Frimley Business Park Frimley Camberley Surrey GU16 7SR Dr C M Longson Director, Centre for Health Technology Evaluation National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
More informationSHIRE v FERRING. Promotion of Pentasa CASE AUTH/2299/2/10
CASE AUTH/2299/2/10 SHIRE v FERRING Promotion of Pentasa Shire complained about the promotion of Pentasa (mesalazine) by Ferring. The items at issue were a 'power of five' booklet, an A4 sheet and an advertisement
More informationOsteoporosis/Fracture Prevention
Osteoporosis/Fracture Prevention NATIONAL GUIDELINE SUMMARY This guideline was developed using an evidence-based methodology by the KP National Osteoporosis/Fracture Prevention Guideline Development Team
More informationBisphosphonate treatment break
Bulletin 110 December 2015 Bisphosphonate treatment break Bisphosphonates have been widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis with robust data demonstrating efficacy in fracture risk reduction over
More informationOsteoporosis Agents Drug Class Prior Authorization Protocol
Osteoporosis Agents Drug Class Prior Authorization Protocol Line of Business: Medicaid P&T Approval Date: February 21, 2018 Effective Date: April 1, 2018 This policy has been developed through review of
More informationClinician s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis
Clinician s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis Published: 15 August 2014 committee of the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) Tipawan khiemsontia,md outline Basic pathophysiology screening
More informationThe legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE OPINION. 21 July 2010
The legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE OPINION 21 July 2010 ACTONEL 5 mg, film-coated tablet B/14 (CIP code: 354 362-3) ACTONEL 30 mg, film-coated tablet B/28 (CIP
More informationPROSTRAKAN v SHIRE. Calcichew-D 3 Forte journal advertisement CASE AUTH/1825/4/06
CASE AUTH/1825/4/06 PROSTRAKAN v SHIRE Calcichew-D 3 Forte journal advertisement ProStrakan complained about a journal advertisement for Calcichew-D 3 Forte (calcium carbonate, colecalciferol) issued by
More informationThe legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE OPINION. 15 December 2010
The legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE OPINION 15 December 2010 DIDRONEL 200 mg, tablets B/60 (CIP code: 345 098-5) DIDRONEL 400 mg, tablets B/14 (CIP code: 333
More informationTYMLOS (abaloparatide)
TYMLOS (abaloparatide) Non-Discrimination Statement and Multi-Language Interpreter Services information are located at the end of this document. Coverage for services, procedures, medical devices and drugs
More informationNOVO NORDISK v SANOFI-AVENTIS
CASE AUTH/2152/8/08 NOVO NORDISK v SANOFI-AVENTIS Promotion of Lantus Novo Nordisk complained about a mailer and two leavepieces produced by Sanofi-Aventis that promoted Lantus (insulin glargine). Novo
More informationName of Policy: Boniva (Ibandronate Sodium) Infusion
Name of Policy: Boniva (Ibandronate Sodium) Infusion Policy #: 266 Latest Review Date: April 2010 Category: Pharmacology Policy Grade: Active Policy but no longer scheduled for regular literature reviews
More informationOsteoporosis. Overview
v2 Osteoporosis Overview Osteoporosis is defined as compromised bone strength that increases risk of fracture (NIH Consensus Conference, 2000). Bone strength is characterized by bone mineral density (BMD)
More informationOsteoporosis Physician Performance Measurement Set. October 2006
American Academy of Family Physicians/American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Rheumatology/The Endocrine Society/Physician Consortium
More informationNOVARTIS v BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
CASE AUTH/2016/7/07 NOVARTIS v BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB Sprycel leavepiece Novartis complained about a Sprycel (dasatinib) leavepiece issued by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Sprycel was indicated for use in patients
More informationAnalyses of cost-effective BMD scanning and treatment strategies for generic alendronate, and the costeffectiveness
Analyses of cost-effective BMD scanning and treatment strategies for generic alendronate, and the costeffectiveness of risedronate and strontium ranelate in those people who would be treated with generic
More informationNOVO NORDISK v SANOFI-AVENTIS
CASE AUTH/2141/7/08 NOVO NORDISK v SANOFI-AVENTIS Promotion of Lantus Novo Nordisk complained about the promotion of Lantus (insulin glargine) by Sanofi-Aventis. The materials at issue were: four leavepieces
More informationREPORT BY THE DECISION SUPPORT UNIT
COMMENTS ON APPRAISAL OF STRONTIUM RANELATE FOR THE PREVENTION OF OSTEOPOROTIC FRAGILITY FRACTURES IN POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN REPORT BY THE DECISION SUPPORT UNIT September, 2010 Professor Keith Abrams 1,
More information1
www.osteoporosis.ca 1 2 Overview of the Presentation Osteoporosis: An Overview Bone Basics Diagnosis of Osteoporosis Drug Therapies Risk Reduction Living with Osteoporosis 3 What is Osteoporosis? Osteoporosis:
More informationA response by Servier to the Statement of Reasons provided by NICE
A response by Servier to the Statement of Reasons provided by NICE Servier gratefully acknowledges the Statement of Reasons document from NICE, and is pleased to provide information to assist NICE in its
More informationTAKEDA v AMDIPHARM MERCURY
CASE AUTH/2834/4/16 TAKEDA v AMDIPHARM MERCURY Promotion of Lutrate Takeda UK complained about a Lutrate (leuprorelin acetate depot injection) promotional email (ref AMCo/LUT/1115/0027) sent by Amdipharm
More informationGENERAL PRACTICTIONER AND GP PRESCRIBING LEAD v TAKEDA
CASE AUTH/2367/10/10 GENERAL PRACTICTIONER AND GP PRESCRIBING LEAD v TAKEDA Use of inverted black triangle A general practitioner and GP prescribing lead, complained about a two page advertisement for
More informationPrevention of Osteoporotic Hip Fracture
Prevention of Osteoporotic Hip Fracture Dr Law Sheung Wai 8th July 2007 Associate Consultant Spine team / Orthopedic Rehabilitation Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology NTE Cluster 1 Objectives Problems
More informationBONIVA (ibandronate sodium)
BONIVA (ibandronate sodium) Non-Discrimination Statement and Multi-Language Interpreter Services information are located at the end of this document. Coverage for services, procedures, medical devices
More informationThe recent publication of guidance from the National
216 Clinical Pharmacist May 2009 Vol 1 Several guidelines exist for the identification and treatment of osteoporosis. Patients diagnosed with the condition should be prescribed bisphosphonates, if suitable,
More informationThis Coverage Policy applies to Individual Health Insurance Marketplace benefit plans only.
This Coverage Policy applies to Individual Health Insurance Marketplace benefit plans only. INJECTABLE OSTEOPOSIS AGENTS SUBJECT Pharmacologic Agents: Bisphosphonates: Boniva IV (ibandronate) Reclast (zoledronic
More informationManagement of postmenopausal osteoporosis
Management of postmenopausal osteoporosis Yeap SS, Hew FL, Chan SP, on behalf of the Malaysian Osteoporosis Society Committee Working Group for the Clinical Guidance on the Management of Osteoporosis,
More informationOsteoporosis Physician Performance Measurement Set. October 2006 Coding Reviewed and Updated November 2009
American Academy of Family Physicians/American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Rheumatology/The Endocrine Society/Physician Consortium
More informationSee Important Reminder at the end of this policy for important regulatory and legal information.
Clinical Policy: (Forteo) Reference Number: CP.PHAR.188 Effective Date: 11.15.17 Last Review Date: 02.19 Line of Business: Commercial* (Exchange Plans), HIM, Medicaid Coding Implications Revision Log See
More informationThe legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE OPINION. 21 July 2010
The legally binding text is the original French version TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE OPINION 21 July 2010 Review of the dossier of the medicinal product included on the list of reimbursable medicines for a period
More informationPRIMARY CARE MEDICAL DIRECTOR v PFIZER
CASE AUTH/2378/12/10 PRIMARY CARE MEDICAL DIRECTOR v PFIZER Promotion of Champix A primary care medical director complained about the conduct of a Pfizer representative who presented at a smoking cessation
More informationOsteoporosis. Current Trend in Osteoporosis Management for Elderly in HK- Medical Perspective. Old Definition of Osteoporosis
Current Trend in Osteoporosis Management for Elderly in HK- Medical Perspective Dr Dicky T.K. Choy Physician Jockey Club Centre for Osteoporosis Care and Control, CUHK Osteoporosis Global public health
More informationName of Policy: Zoledronic Acid (Reclast ) Injection
Name of Policy: Zoledronic Acid (Reclast ) Injection Policy #: 355 Latest Review Date: May 2011 Category: Pharmacy Policy Grade: Active Policy but no longer scheduled for regular literature reviews and
More informationThe Bare Bones of Osteoporosis. Wendy Rosenthal, PharmD
The Bare Bones of Osteoporosis Wendy Rosenthal, PharmD Definition A systemic skeletal disease characterized by low bone mass and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue, with a consequent increase
More informationDumfries and Galloway. Treatment Protocol for Osteoporosis
Dumfries and Galloway Treatment Protocol for Osteoporosis DIAGNOSIS OF OSTEOPOROSIS 2 Diagnostic Criteria 2 REFERRAL CRITERIA FOR DEXA 3 TREATMENT 4 Non-Drug Therapy : for all 4 Non-Drug Therapy : in the
More informationdenosumab (Prolia ) Policy # Original Effective Date: 07/21/2011 Current Effective Date: 04/19/2017
Applies to all products administered or underwritten by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and its subsidiary, HMO Louisiana, Inc.(collectively referred to as the Company ), unless otherwise provided
More informationBased on review of available data, the Company may consider the use of denosumab (Prolia) for the
Applies to all products administered or underwritten by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and its subsidiary, HMO Louisiana, Inc.(collectively referred to as the Company ), unless otherwise provided
More informationOSTEOPOROSIS: PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT
OSTEOPOROSIS: OVERVIEW OSTEOPOROSIS: PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT Judith Walsh, MD, MPH Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics UCSF Definitions Key Risk factors Screening and Monitoring
More informationSHIRE v PROCTER & GAMBLE
CASE AUTH/2267/9/09 SHIRE v PROCTER & GAMBLE Promotion of Asacol Shire complained about two leavepieces and a journal advertisement promoting Asacol (modified release mesalazine) issued by Procter & Gamble.
More informationThis house believes that HRT should be the first-line prevention for postmenopausal osteoporosis: the case against
This house believes that HRT should be the first-line prevention for postmenopausal osteoporosis: the case against Juliet Compston Professor of Bone Medicine University of Cambridge School of Clinical
More informationDenosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women
Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in Issued: October 2010 guidance.nice.org.uk/ta204 NICE has accredited the process used by the Centre for Health Technology Evaluation at NICE to
More informationModule 5 - Speaking of Bones Osteoporosis For Health Professionals: Fracture Risk Assessment. William D. Leslie, MD MSc FRCPC
Module 5 - Speaking of Bones Osteoporosis For Health Professionals: Fracture Risk Assessment William D. Leslie, MD MSc FRCPC Case #1 Age 53: 3 years post-menopause Has always enjoyed excellent health with
More informationNew Developments in Osteoporosis: Screening, Prevention and Treatment
Osteoporosis: Overview New Developments in Osteoporosis: Screening, Prevention and Treatment Judith Walsh, MD, MPH Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics UCSF Definitions Risk factors
More informationPharmacy Management Drug Policy
SUBJECT: - Forteo (teriparatide), Prolia (denosumab), Tymlos (abaloparatide) POLICY NUMBER: Pharmacy-35 EFFECTIVE DATE: 9/07 LAST REVIEW DATE: 9/29/2017 If the member s subscriber contract excludes coverage
More informationTechnology appraisal guidance Published: 9 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta464
Bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis Technology appraisal guidance Published: 9 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta464 NICE 2018. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights (https://www.nice.org.uk/terms-and-conditions#notice-ofrights).
More informationSummary. Background. Diagnosis
March 2009 Management of post-menopausal osteoporosis This bulletin focuses on the pharmacological management of patients with post-menopausal osteoporosis both those with clinically evident disease (e.g.
More informationPharmacy Management Drug Policy
Clinical criteria used to make utilization review decisions are based on credible scientific evidence published in peer reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the medical community. Guidelines
More informationIssue date: October Review date: July 2010
Issue date: October 2008 Review date: July 2010 Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and strontium ranelate for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal
More informationClinical Specialist Statement Template
Clinical Specialist Statement Template Thank you for agreeing to give us a statement on your organisation s view of the technology and the way it should be used in the NHS. Healthcare professionals can
More informationOsteoporosis Clinical Guideline. Rheumatology January 2017
Osteoporosis Clinical Guideline Rheumatology January 2017 Introduction Osteoporosis is a condition of low bone mass leading to an increased risk of low trauma fractures. The prevalence of osteoporosis
More informationDenosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women
Issue date: October 2010 Denosumab for the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women This guidance was developed using the single technology appraisal process NICE technology appraisal
More informationTechnology appraisal guidance Published: 9 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta464
Bisphosphonates for treating osteoporosis Technology appraisal guidance Published: 9 August 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta464 NICE 2017. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights (https://www.nice.org.uk/terms-and-conditions#notice-ofrights).
More informationASTRAZENECA v GLAXOSMITHKLINE
CASE AUTH/1986/4/07 ASTRAZENECA v GLAXOSMITHKLINE Symbicort and Seretide cost comparisons AstraZeneca complained about cost comparisons made by GlaxoSmithKline between AstraZeneca s Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol)
More informationWhat is Osteoporosis?
What is Osteoporosis? 2000 NIH Definition A skeletal disorder characterized by compromised bone strength predisposing a person to an increased risk of fracture. Bone strength reflects the integration of
More informationAACE/ACE Osteoporosis Treatment Decision Tool
AACE/ACE Osteoporosis Treatment Decision Tool What is Osteoporosis? OSTEOPOROSIS is defined as reduced bone strength leading to an increased risk of fracture. Osteoporosis, or porous bones, occurs when
More informationBAXTER v NOVO NORDISK
CASE AUTH/2385/2/11 BAXTER v NOVO NORDISK NovoSeven leavepiece Baxter complained about the source data used in support of a cost effectiveness claim which appeared in a NovoSeven leavepiece issued by Novo
More informationOsteoporosis: An Overview. Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS
Osteoporosis: An Overview Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS Osteoporosis: An Overview Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, MS Professor of Medicine David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Objectives Review osteoporosis
More informationOsteoporosis and Lupus. Andrew Ruthberg, MD University Rheumatologists
Osteoporosis and Lupus Andrew Ruthberg, MD University Rheumatologists 1 Forget the medical terminology (osteoporosis, osteopenia, low bone mass, DEXA, DXA, T score etc) The bottom line is that you don
More informationJohn J. Wolf, DO Family Medicine
John J. Wolf, DO Family Medicine Objectives: 1. Review incidence & Risk of Osteoporosis 2.Review indications for testing 3.Review current pharmacologic & Non pharmacologic Tx options 4.Understand & Utilize
More informationDisclosures. Diagnostic Challenges in Osteoporosis: Whom To Treat 9/25/2014
Disclosures Diagnostic Challenges in Osteoporosis: Whom To Treat Ethel S. Siris, MD Columbia University Medical Center New York, NY Consultant on scientific issues for: AgNovos Amgen Eli Lilly Merck Novartis
More informationPharmacy Management Drug Policy
SUBJECT: - Forteo (teriparatide), Prolia (denosumab), Tymlos (abaloparatide), Boniva injection (Ibandronate) POLICY NUMBER: Pharmacy-35 EFFECTIVE DATE: 9/07 LAST REVIEW DATE: 10/15/2018 If the member s
More informationVol. 19, Bulletin No. 108 August-September 2012 Also in the Bulletin: Denosumab 120mg for Bone Metastases
ה מ ר א פ הביטאון לענייני תרופות ISRAEL DRUG BULLETIN 19 years of unbiased and independent drug information P H A R x M A Vol. 19, Bulletin No. 108 August-September 2012 Also in the Bulletin: Denosumab
More informationA response by Servier to the Decision Support Unit report on strontium ranelate
A response by Servier to the Decision Support Unit report on strontium ranelate Servier gratefully acknowledges the report from the DSU on the appraisal of strontium ranelate for the prevention of osteoporotic
More informationTreatments for Osteoporosis Expected Benefits, Potential Harms and Drug Holidays. Suzanne Morin MD FRCP FACP McGill University May 2014
Treatments for Osteoporosis Expected Benefits, Potential Harms and Drug Holidays Suzanne Morin MD FRCP FACP McGill University May 2014 Learning Objectives Overview of osteoporosis management Outline efficacy
More informationNEW DEVELOPMENTS IN OSTEOPOROSIS: SCREENING, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN OSTEOPOROSIS: SCREENING, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT Judith Walsh, MD, MPH Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics UCSF OSTEOPOROSIS: OVERVIEW Definitions Risk factors
More informationThank you for agreeing to give us a statement on your organisation s view of the technology and the way it should be used in the NHS.
Appendix I - Thank you for agreeing to give us a statement on your organisation s view of the technology and the way it should be used in the NHS. Healthcare professionals can provide a unique perspective
More informationTechnology appraisal guidance Published: 27 October 2008 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta160
Raloxifene for the primary prevention ention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women Technology appraisal guidance Published: 27 October 2008 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta160 NICE 2018. All
More informationAssessment and Treatment of Osteoporosis Professor T.Masud
Assessment and Treatment of Osteoporosis Professor T.Masud Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust University of Nottingham University of Derby University of Southern Denmark What is Osteoporosis? Osteoporosis
More informationOsteoporosis challenges
Osteoporosis challenges Osteoporosis challenges Who should have a fracture risk assessment? Who to treat? Drugs, holidays and unusual adverse effects Fracture liaison service? The size of the problem 1
More informationASTRAZENECA v GLAXOSMITHKLINE
CASE AUTH/1833/5/06 ASTRAZENECA v GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONCEPT study leavepiece AstraZeneca complained that a leavepiece issued by Allen & Hanburys, part of GlaxoSmithKline, did not present a fair and balanced
More informationNew 2010 Osteoporosis Guidelines: What you and your health provider need to know QUESTIONS&ANSWERS
New 2010 Osteoporosis Guidelines: What you and your health provider need to know QUESTIONS&ANSWERS Wednesday, December 1, 2010 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. ET 1. I m 55 years old. I ve been taking Fosavance
More informationUnderstanding NICE guidance. NICE technology appraisal guidance advises on when and how drugs and other treatments should be used in the NHS.
Understanding NICE guidance Information for people who use NHS services Alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, strontium ranelate and raloxifene for preventing bone fractures in postmenopausal women with
More informationGuidelines for the Pharmaceutical Management of Osteoporosis in Adult WA Public Hospitals
WA.DRUG EVALUATION PANEL Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Management of Osteoporosis in Adult WA Public Hospitals Introduction Osteoporotic fracture-related hospitalisations impose a substantial financial
More informationMay Professor Matt Stevenson School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield
ASSESSING THE FEASIBILITY OF TRANSFORMING THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN TA160, TA161 AND TA204 INTO ABSOLUTE 10-YEAR RISK OF FRACTURE A REPORT PRODUCED BY THE DECISION SUPPORT UNIT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REVIEW
More informationParathyroid Hormone Analogs
Federal Employee Program 1310 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 202.942.1000 Fax 202.942.1125 5.30.36 Subject: Parathyroid Hormone Analogs Page: 1 of 6 Last Review Date: September 15, 2017 Parathyroid
More informationOsteoporosis update. Dr. Claire Vandevelde Consultant Rheumatologist, LTHT
Osteoporosis update Dr. Claire Vandevelde Consultant Rheumatologist, LTHT Outline Background BMD Tools for assessing fracture risk Case study Denosumab Treatment breaks BMD BMD predicts fracture risk but
More informationFragile Bones and how to recognise them. Rod Hughes Consultant physician and rheumatologist St Peter s hospital Chertsey
Fragile Bones and how to recognise them Rod Hughes Consultant physician and rheumatologist St Peter s hospital Chertsey Osteoporosis Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone
More informationInitial Pathway for DEXA Referral and Treatment for Fracture Risk Reduction in Postmenopausal Women and Men Age 50 or Above
Initial Pathway for DEXA Referral and Treatment for Fracture Risk Reduction in Postmenopausal Women and Men Age 50 or Above 2 or > vertebral fractures Low trauma fracture In past 5 years Risk Factors (table1)
More informationOsteoporosis Treatment Overview. Colton Larson RFUMS October 26, 2018
Osteoporosis Treatment Overview Colton Larson RFUMS October 26, 2018 Burden of Disease Most common bone disease 9.9 million Americans + 43.1 million Americans have low bone mineral density (BMD) Stealthy
More informationDisclosures. Bisphosphonate Treatment for Osteoporosis: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks? Risks vs Benefits. Bisphosphonates: Benefits and Risks
Bisphosphonate Treatment for steoporosis: Do the Benefits utweigh the Risks? 37 th Annual Advances in Internal Medicine May 18 and June 22, 29 hsponsored resentations Disclosures Eli Lilly & Company, GlaxoSmithKline,
More informationHow to treat osteoporosis With what and for how long?
How to treat osteoporosis With what and for how long? Professor Neil Gittoes Consultant Endocrinologist & Honorary Professor Where will we be going? Drug therapies Current Indications Contraindications/unmet
More informationNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE GUIDANCE EXECUTIVE (GE) Consideration of consultation responses on review proposal
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE GUIDANCE EXECUTIVE (GE) Consideration of consultation responses on review Review of TA160, TA161 and TA204; Technologies for the primary and secondary
More informationUpdates in Osteoporosis. I have no conflicts of interest. What Would You Do? Mrs. C. What s New in Osteoporosis. Page 1
Updates in Osteoporosis Jeffrey A. Tice, MD Associate Professor of Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco I have no conflicts of interest What s New in
More informationNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE. Single technology appraisal (STA)
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CLINICAL EXCELLENCE Single technology appraisal (STA) Denosumab for the Prevention of Osteoporotic Fractures in Postmenopausal Women Manufacturer Response to Clarification
More informationHEALTH PROFESSIONAL v SANOFI
CASE AUTH/3062/8/18 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL v SANOFI Toujeo leaflet A consultant physician complained about a six-page A5 gate-folded leavepiece produced by Sanofi. The leavepiece related to Toujeo (insulin
More informationBRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND PFIZER v DAIICHI-SANKYO
CASE AUTH/3010/1/18 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND PFIZER v DAIICHI-SANKYO Promotion of Lixiana Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer (The Alliance) made a joint complaint about the promotion of Lixiana
More informationCONSULTANT PHYSICIAN v SANOFI
CASE AUTH/2951/4/17 CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN v SANOFI Promotion of Toujeo A consultant physician complained about promotion of Toujeo (insulin glargine) by Sanofi. The material at issue presented the outcome
More information